9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 926 - AT - Income TaxLate fee u/s 234E - intimation u/s 200A - Late filing of TDS returns / statement - dispute is regarding filing of Form 26Q and therefore, sub-rule 1 is applicable and not sub-rule 4A - HELD THAT - As relying on Meghna Gupta 2018 (10) TMI 355 - ITAT DELHI this is the observation of the Tribunal that fees under section 234E is leviable only when the statement is not filed as prescribed u/s 200(3) which in turn provides that the statement is to be filed after payment of the TDS to the prescribed authorities. In the present case, the TDS was deposited on 21.10.2015 and the actual date of filing of Form 26Q is 02.11.2015 and hence, as per this Tribunal order, the delay in filing of statement is to be counted from the date of payment of TDS because before the payment of TDS, the quarterly statement cannot be filed and if we compute the delay in this manner, the delay is of 12 days only as per the working provided by the assessee on page 5 of the Paper Book. Accordingly, we uphold the levy of fees under section 234E to this extent i.e., ₹ 2,400/- and delete the balance amount of fees levied by the AO and confirmed by learned CIT(A) under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of charging late fees under Section 234E for the delayed filing of Form 26Q. 2. Applicability of sub-rule 4A of Rule 31A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Charging Late Fees under Section 234E: The primary contention by the assessee was against the late fee of ?22,000/- charged under Section 234E for the delayed filing of Form 26Q for the first quarter of the Financial Year 2015-16. The assessee argued that the delay was only 12 days, as the TDS was paid on 21.10.2015 and Form 26Q was filed on 02.11.2015. Therefore, the late fee should be ?2,400/- (?200 per day for 12 days) instead of ?22,000/-. The Revenue, however, supported the AO and CIT(A)'s order, stating that the due date for filing Form 26Q for the quarter ending 30th June is 15th July of the Financial Year, making the demand for ?22,000/- correct. 2. Applicability of Sub-rule 4A of Rule 31A: The assessee referenced sub-rule 4A of Rule 31A, which states that the required form must be submitted within 30 days from the end of the month in which the deduction is made. The Revenue countered this by asserting that sub-rule 4A applies to Form 26QB, not Form 26Q. The Tribunal examined the case of Meghna Gupta Vs. ACIT, where it was observed that fees under Section 234E are leviable only when the statement is not filed as prescribed under Section 200(3), which mandates filing after the payment of TDS to the prescribed authority. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the relevant legal provisions. It was noted that Rule 31A pertains to the filing of statements under Section 200(3), and sub-rule 1 of Rule 31A applies to Form 26Q. The due date for filing Form 26Q for the first quarter is 15th July. However, the Tribunal acknowledged the observation from the Meghna Gupta case that the delay should be counted from the date of TDS payment, as the statement cannot be filed before the TDS payment. In this case, the TDS was paid on 21.10.2015, and Form 26Q was filed on 02.11.2015, resulting in a delay of 12 days. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the levy of fees under Section 234E to the extent of ?2,400/- and deleted the balance amount of ?19,600/-. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal reducing the late fee under Section 234E from ?22,000/- to ?2,400/-. The decision emphasized the importance of considering the date of TDS payment when calculating the delay for filing the statement under Section 200(3).
|
